Ms Sethi v. Dsiidc Ltd

SANJIV KHANNA, J kapil/pk

* HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on: 31st January, 2011 % Judgment Pronounced on: April 20, 2011 + M.S. SETHI ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Jagjit Singh, Adv. Versus DELHI STATE INDUSTRIAL & INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION LTD. ..... Respondents Through: Ms.Anusuya Salwan with Ms.Renuka Arora, Advs. CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV KHANNA 1. Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment? Yes 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes DIPAK MISRA, CJ The present intra-Court appeal is directed against the order dated 13th August, 2010 passed by the learned Single Judge in WP (C) No. 3773/2007. 2. Sans unnecessary details, the facts which are essential to be adumbrated are that the Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd. (DSIIDC), the respondent herein, floated a scheme in September, 2003 for allotment of flats to the successful allottees of plots under relocation scheme for the employees known as "Rajiv Gandhi Housing Project Self Finance Cost Effective Workers Housing Scheme" (for short "the Scheme"). The applications were invited from both bona fide industrial workers and industrial owners. The respondent had constructed 3164 flats/houses (1500 type-I and 1664 type-II) under the said project. The respondent received 1036 applications out of which 931 applicants were found to be eligible and were allotted one unit each per eligible applicant. As the response was poor and 2233 flats had remained unallotted, applications were again invited in the second phase in September, 2004 as per the brochure. As set forth, the appellant submitted an application for allotment of 5 flats and deposited Rs.1 lakh on 28th September, 2004 with the respondent along with other requisite documents, as stipulated in the brochure. In the second phase, 2040 applications were received and at the first instance one flat was allotted to each worker found eligible and the industrial plot allottees of general category. In this manner, 1867 allotments were effected. The appellant was allotted one flat under the said Scheme on 8th March, 2006. In the order of allotment, the installment, total amount payable and due date of payment of installment were stipulated. After granting allotment of one flat, no further allotment of flats were made and the security amount was not refunded. When the appellant visited the office of the respondent, the concerned authorities intimated him that his application in respect of other four flats was pending consideration. It may be noted here that 337 flats remained unallotted and 700 applications were received for allotment of more than one flat. It was not possible to allot these 337 flats to 700 applicants. As per the case of the respondent a policy decision was taken not to allot more than one flat to these 700 applicants. These 337 flats were included in the second Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme launched by the respondent in 2007. This time applications were invited from industrial workers in any industrial complex of Delhi and employees of group C and D including temporary/daily wages/work charge in any of the public sector undertakings or under Government of NCT of Delhi. Owners of industrial plots were not eligible. The respondent received 11,000 applications under the second Rajiv Gandhi Housing Scheme launched in 2007. As per this scheme only one flat could be allotted to each eligible applicant. 3. As pleaded, both the advertisements clearly spell out that both the schemes were introduced for employees for the purposes of their welfare. Despite the said Schemes being introduced and the amount that was paid by the appellant for the four flats, the same have not been allotted despite the money lying in deposit with the respondent. The appellant made several representations last one being 12th April, 2007. The appellant claims priority of allotment in resp